Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Locked
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Post by chola »

mody wrote:
ramana wrote:Wonder when the CLGM will ever materialize!

Will most probably take some more time. CLGM is currently caught up the Arjun vortex. It was designed to be fired from Arjun's 120 mm gun. Now with the Arjun MK-2 still not cleared and looks like will probably never be cleared, or cleared in small number like 118 or max 240 (+/-10), developing CLGM makes no sense. The quantity required will be too small.
The army and DRDO should come together to spell out the GSQR for FMBT with perhaps a 125 mm smoot bore or 130 mm smoot bore gun. CLGM can then be designed and developed as per the same. Personally a 130 mm gun would be better. Rheinmetal has already developed and unveiled a 130mm gun. DRDO has to think 1 step ahead of the 125mm bore and go with 130mm. CLGM designed for 130mm gun, will also have a higher range.
We have a 3rd gen project to replace the old Russian INVAR on the T-90s.

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/pune/ar ... 515076.cms
The sources said the third generation missile should achieve a DoP of 800-850 mm and will be capable of hitting targets up to a range of 8 KM in day as well as night. The missiles, to be fired from the 125mm gun barrels of T-90 tanks, will be able to hit targets by taking a pre-flight programmed manoeuvres.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ParGha »

Who spots the targets at 8kms? It is very difficult for the TC to look for targets that far ahead and not lose situational awareness of his 3km—0.8km primary AOR.

It may be better to assign that work to a FAO-type role, who orders missile fire or calls in fire from a NAMICA. That also makes a case for continued 4-man or even 4+6 man tank+HIFV like Merkavas.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by darshhan »

I cannot understand IA's obsession with tank cannon fired atgm. What exactly is the point.?

Just have couple of Namicas or any other missile carrier vehicle accompany the tanks. They will be able to do this task much better.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

^^^ Just excuses to not induct the Arjun tank.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Mihir »

darshhan wrote:I cannot understand IA's obsession with tank cannon fired atgm. What exactly is the point.?
The Mango is an old design that lacks range as well as penetrating power against modern armour. Hence ATGMs.
Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Bishwa »

darshhan wrote:I cannot understand IA's obsession with tank cannon fired atgm. What exactly is the point.?

Just have couple of Namicas or any other missile carrier vehicle accompany the tanks. They will be able to do this task much better.
One use case for tank fired ATGM i have read about : The tank is behind a sand dune and when it climbs the dune and hits the crest, its main gun is pointing skywards and uselfess and its underbelly is exposed too. An ATGM fired will allow it to engage targets beyond the dune without exposing the tank.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rahul M »

how is the target acquired ?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Rahul M wrote:how is the target acquired ?

For clgm, third party designation. But it will not work with Russian missile.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Target acquisition could be through NCW and the IA is planning to acquire a huge qty. of drones.An 8km range would give the MBT a big advantage over the enemy.No need for an AV aux., but the new Ru Terminator AV, is a hybrid between a missile tank destroter and an ICV, also equipped with a cannon.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Any developments on LOAL for ATGMs ?
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by tsarkar »

darshhan wrote:I cannot understand IA's obsession with tank cannon fired atgm. What exactly is the point.?
Most Armoured Corps officers I spoke with compared tank gun and sabot rounds to Japanese battleship Yamato. The culmination of battleship technology with largest (18") guns and thickest armour ever built but obsolete.

Tank primary threat and targets are no longer other tanks but bunkers, aircraft & helicopters, small fast tactical vehicles and dug in personnel with cheap ATGM.

Just like navies have moved from large battleships to smaller missile armed and active protection + EW equipped destroyers and frigates, our armored and mechanized folks prefer a lighter tank able to fire missile not limited by line of sight and using APS instead of armour for defence.
darshhan wrote:Just have couple of Namicas or any other missile carrier vehicle accompany the tanks. They will be able to do this task much better.
Correct. Which is why BMP-2 with Konkur accompany T-72/T-90 for long range firepower. Nag is expensive because of its IIR seeker. INVAR cost comes inbetween Nag and Konkurs. What is needed is a cheap non line of sight missile.
Rahul M wrote:how is the target acquired ?
INVAR advertises as being designated by helicopter, drones and man portable systems. It flies not inline with the laser beam but significantly offset to the laser beam and this enables NLOS targeting.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Post by sudeepj »

Rahul M wrote:
sudeepj wrote:The golden age of the ATGM is past us. Active protection systems will render most of these obsolete within the next 5-7 years. The golden age of a sensor fused, drone integrated, 2 or 3 person tank is still ahead of us.
for the current designs, possibly.

APS have a limited protection bubble, of a few metrs beyond the extent of the vehicle. I would predict if APS do become as ubiquitous & effective as you imagine, weapon designers would respond by mounting a kinetic terminal stage on ATGMs instead of a conventional HEAT warhead. the terminal stage would be programed to fire just outside the protective bubble of the APS. further development might see a smaller kinetic stage initiated first to trigger the ERA.
another approach would be to target APS directly, with a dummy fired to pinpoint the location following by simultaneous firings at the APS itself in order to overwhelm & destroy it. akin to a SEAD/DEAD mission but on a much smaller range.
You can expect this kinetic stage to be some kind of an EFP. The issue is, EFP 'long rods' quickly lose energy and can also be defeated by ERA. Further, the EFP penetration is a fraction of shaped charge penetration (1.x times the diameter of the charge, compared to 6-7 times for shaped charge), so ERA+conventional passive armor can easily defeat it. Small crew, all aspect armor + ERA + APS will make the next gen tanks enjoy an advantage for perhaps a decade or more. Sure, the advantage will be eroded in time, but while newer solutions are developed, the Tanks will rule. JMT.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

RInfra to deliver parts prototypes for Arjun Mark II ahead of schedule.

Reliance Infra is planning to deliver prototypes of the hull and turret for the Arjun Mark II main battle tank (MBT) to the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) six month ahead of the deadline. The prototypes are being manufactured at the company’s facility in Silvassa.

RInfra had won the contract to manufacture the prototypes in 2017 through a competitive bidding process. Other bidders included L&T, Bharat Forge, the Mahindras and Godrej.

“We are ready to deliver the hull and turret for the Arjun Mark II MBT six months ahead of schedule,” a Reliance spokesperson told BusinessLine. “This is amongst the first such projects to be awarded to the private sector in India, with the longer-term objective of creating alternative capacities and capabilities.”

The CVRDE has been looking to scale up the manufacturing capacity of Arjun tanks to meet the Army’s requirements. Private sector players were hence considered as an alternative supply line in addition to the Ordnance Factory Board, which has so far been the sole supplier of indigenous components for the MBTs.

Without disclosing the details and size of the CVRDE order bagged by RInfra, sources said the company is targeting an overall opportunity of ₹2,500 crore once mass production starts.

The Defence Acquisition Council gave the green signal for the ₹6,600-crore procurement of 118 Arjun Mark II MBTs to equip two regiments back in 2014. This will be in addition to an earlier order for 124 Arjun Mark I tanks currently manufactured by state-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, Chennai.

The Mark II version developed by the CVRDE was based on the Army’s recommendations following comparative trials of the Arjun Mark I and Russia’s T-90.

One of the main requirements, according to experts, was to reduce the weight of the tank as well as incorporate an anti-tank missile firing capability. The weight of Mark II has been reduced to less than 50 tonnes. The updated model has over 90 improvements over the previous version. Also, it largely relies on indigenous components.
VickyAvinash
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 07:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by VickyAvinash »

Is the weight mentioned in the news true? Less than 50T? Seems to be an error
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Katare »

This was a weight reduction exercise by making a integrated hull (whatever that means) as per DRDO publication earlier but i don’t think weight would go anywhere near 50 ton with the crew of 4.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

VickyAvinash wrote:Is the weight mentioned in the news true? Less than 50T? Seems to be an error
Its meant to me less than 500T. Then it would be correct no?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Karan M »

From 65+ tons to 50 tons? Doesnt at all seem feasible.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Not for Arjun. But perhaps a new vehicle using the technology developed for Arjun is possible in the weight class.

Did we not see a design study for a new tank.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Khalsa »

Correct that drop seems to be too sharp....
what the heck ?

is this is an unknown or hidden Future Combat Vehicle aka Arjun Mk3
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3113
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by JTull »

Arjun Mk-II: 50T
Seems that one of chota-bhai's finance guys got hold of the press release. Always creative! :P
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

JTull wrote:
Arjun Mk-II: 50T
Seems that one of chota-bhai's finance guys got hold of the press release. Always creative! :P
Vonlee 10 ton saar!!!!
Russell Peters would have a field day with this...
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

From around 65t to below 50t is nothing short of a miracle...if it is the same MBT with a 4-man crew. Anyway,the CCS has passed the acquisition of over 400+ extra T-90s.I think that the arty reqs. are of a higher priority than further MBTs.It's proving to be a great desi success story with ATAGs,etc. More SP arty could be given a higher priority. Perhaps a light/amphib tank acquisition of a couple of hundreds may take place for the ANC and mountains.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Mihir »

Katare wrote:This was a weight reduction exercise by making a integrated hull (whatever that means) as per DRDO publication earlier but i don’t think weight would go anywhere near 50 ton with the crew of 4.
I hope this doesn't mean they're building a tank destroyer :|
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nam »

There are some un-manned and turret less design from drdo floating on web.. Not sure if it is the "prototype".

Turret less design( however with proper rotating gun) with current tech may be a viable option. Tonbo has the 360 view sight tech, similar to the Israeli version.

It would meet the IA weight requirement and break the impasse. Plus a difficult target to hit to no turret.

Given that it will be less than 50 ton, could use T90 engine, smoothbore and auto-loader.. can break the barrier in to IA entry. We have the building blocks, need to be imaginative in putting them together.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

GD, I saw these quite close in Italy. Look very useful


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iveco_LMV

Wish Indian truck companies make a design similar to this.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

On the Q of weight, the "F" mag had a feature on Ru wares .The Sprut 18t amphib/LT (with extra external armour) is being touted for the IA both for the mountains and ANC.It is easily transportable with C-130s, etc.and in the amphib mode can fire even when in the water.Using the same gun as on the T-90 would make it compatible and reduce support, etc.

Armatas are going to be tested in the Arctic first.Ru has decided not to "melt" thousands of legacy T-72s, etc., but to upgrade them , perhaps taking their cue from the IA which is also upgrading around 1K+ legacy T-72s.A more cost-effective solution when pockets aren't full and other priorities are being accelerated, esp. in the strategic assets, aircraft, subs and missiles.
Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Kersi »

A thought in my mind since a long time. If we can have a single (or maximum twin) seat aircraft can't we have single / twin manned tank with say automatic loader ? Why Not ?
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by tsarkar »

Kersi wrote:A thought in my mind since a long time. If we can have a single (or maximum twin) seat aircraft can't we have single / twin manned tank with say automatic loader ? Why Not ?
That indeed is the way of the future. An armoured vehicle with a crew of 2-3 minus armour minus gun but with a 30-40 missile loadout of relatively cheap fire and forget guided missiles like MPATGMs with tandem warheads against tanks, thermobaric warheads against sangars and bunkers and HE rounds against helicopters and UAVs. Instead of armour it would have an Active Protection System. IA is already using INVAR missiles this way
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ParGha »

An aircraft flies in and out of the battlefield back to safe and clean hangars, so it can be loaded out with sensitive sensors; a tank is supposed to fight it out in the mud for days on end while getting peppered with small-arms and artillery shrapnel.

Too much dependency on fancy electronic sensors will leave the tanks vulnerable to a mission-kill, even if they aren’t physically killed.

IMHO, tanks will continue to take on new sensors and get networked with UAVs, but they will become like the Merkavas — with enough internal space to host sensor operators and a dismount stick of Mech Infantry. This 2-man tank is an engineer’s pet project completely disconnected from the reality of a combined arms battlefield.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ParGha »

Tsarkar-ji, if you take out the armor and the main gun, it is a missile carrier - no longer a tank. It too has an important role in th future, but it does not replace a tank.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Katare »

tsarkar wrote:
Kersi wrote:A thought in my mind since a long time. If we can have a single (or maximum twin) seat aircraft can't we have single / twin manned tank with say automatic loader ? Why Not ?
That indeed is the way of the future. An armoured vehicle with a crew of 2-3 minus armour minus gun but with a 30-40 missile loadout of relatively cheap fire and forget guided missiles like MPATGMs with tandem warheads against tanks, thermobaric warheads against sangars and bunkers and HE rounds against helicopters and UAVs. Instead of armour it would have an Active Protection System. IA is already using INVAR missiles this way
Active protection system against tank rounds? That would be some technology! I thought the APS only works against slow flying missiles and RPGs. Reaction time available to track and stop a tank fired round is astonishingly short for any APS. If it is possible than we could even have an APS for stopping bullets that can replace body armors. At this point it's hard to believe that you can dump the armor altogether and still have the similar level of crew safety.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nam »

Counter( ATGM) for APS would be found quite quickly, if not already present. APS theoretically is ERA exploding outside the tank!

Given there are counter to ERA is form of tandem warhead.. it will not be difficult to build a counter for APS.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nam »

Having a two member tank crew is not ideal, as it will be overload of tasks that is needed to efficiently use the tank. If the intention is reduce casualties, then it is better to invest in un-manned/robotic tanks, which will give you a dump shooting platform devoid of the experience that a trained crew brings in( and lots of other issues). However there will be no human causalities.

Tanks & artillery will stay in one form or the other. They make war economically viable!
souravB
BRFite
Posts: 630
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by souravB »

IA Light Strike/Support Vehicle contest
Light Support Vehicle
https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 3958446081

Ashok Leyland
This looks like modular armored transport vehicle
Image

TATA Motors
Image

Mahindra MBPV(Mahindra Bullet Proof Vehicle)
This one looks uber cool and hopefully gets selected as urban COIN operation vehicle.
Image

Light Strike Vehicle
https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 8923772930

Kalyani Group + General Motors HMMWV Chassis
This is an interesting concept. With proper armor it can be our desi HUMVEE
Image

Force Motors
already inducted in a small number.
Image
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by tsarkar »

Katare wrote:Active protection system against tank rounds? That would be some technology!
IBD Deisenroth Engineering has developed an APS with Dense Inert Metal Explosives to take out rod penetrators.

Apparently so does Iron Fist
https://www.wired.com/2009/01/mystery-weapon/
The Israeli "Iron Fist" interceptor unveiled in 2006 is a similar concept, with small radar-guided projectiles. "Iron Fist uses only the blast effect to defeat the threat, crushing the soft components of a shaped charge or deflecting and destabilizing the missile or kinetic rod in their flight," according to Defense Update. This suggests DIME technology.
Last edited by tsarkar on 18 Sep 2018 00:48, edited 1 time in total.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by tsarkar »

ParGha wrote:Tsarkar-ji, if you take out the armor and the main gun, it is a missile carrier - no longer a tank. It too has an important role in th future, but it does not replace a tank.
ParGha Ji, you have missile armed destroyers and frigates rather than gun and armoured Yamato and Iowa class battleships. The writing is on the wall.

The tank gun and armour is obsolete. As ships use missiles and CIWS, combat vehicles will use missiles and APS.
Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1242
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Mukesh.Kumar »

JTull wrote:
Arjun Mk-II: 50T
Seems that one of chota-bhai's finance guys got hold of the press release. Always creative! :P
Trust the gujju guys to pare off weight . Nothing but pore commercials in this sir. Someone should check if they took out the engines onlee. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Picklu »

tsarkar wrote:
ParGha wrote:Tsarkar-ji, if you take out the armor and the main gun, it is a missile carrier - no longer a tank. It too has an important role in th future, but it does not replace a tank.
ParGha Ji, you have missile armed destroyers and frigates rather than gun and armoured Yamato and Iowa class battleships. The writing is on the wall.

The tank gun and armour is obsolete. As ships use missiles and CIWS, combat vehicles will use missiles and APS.
There is no melee in naval combat any more, the last one was attack of Karachi. No contested landing either for a long long time.

No concept of holding the ground as none stays on water, it is used only as a path of transportation.

Since none stays and only transport vessels roam on open ocean, it allows the military powers to create protective bubble using naval air power and long range shooting using missile. Or creation of mobile area denial zone using submarine.

Not sure all these conditions can be true or ported one is to one in land battle.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Karan M »

The cost of each missile is so much that a few loadouts will beggar any army. They have far more handling restrictions and its one thing for large platforms and bases to carefully manage them. Tanks which perforce have to be rugged and manage with minimal support..its easy to see why APFSDS remains so popular. Coming to APS deployment, in theory, claims have been made of APS capability against KE penetrators such as Iron Fist. Their deployment remains theoretical hence why IA is still evaluating APS systems.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Karan, any figs. for costs of our legacy Milan and Konkurs licence built? Plus, is there any stat./ report regarding the numbers (and types) of ATGMs that the IA needs for infantry, AVs and attack helos.
Locked